On Monday morning, the trial related to the fatal ice sculpture accident at the 2019 Christmas market in Luxembourg City came to an end. The verdict will be handed down on 2 July.
The final day of the proceedings largely focused on the claims for damages submitted by the civil parties.
However, an unexpected development occurred first. The lawyer representing the lead sculptor sought to summon a new witness who had contacted the public prosecutor's office during the first week of the trial. The man had not come forward in response to any of the witness appeals issued after the accident. In a written statement, he now claimed that, just 30 minutes before the accident, he had seen a group of children kicking the sculpture so forcefully that pieces were flying off.
The man took a week to formulate precisely what he had witnessed, meaning his statement was only submitted last Wednesday. The representative of the public prosecutor's office noted that the statement was accompanied by a nearly twice-as-long tirade about how poorly children are raised these days, characterising the submission as having "practically conspiratorial" features. More significantly, the prosecution pointed out that the man's account is neither corroborated by any other testimony given immediately after the accident nor by any of the numerous photographs taken by witnesses and shared with the police. The man was informed of these concerns in writing and was also told that it was doubtful whether he had even been in Luxembourg City on the day of the accident. Following a brief consultation, the court decided not to summon the witness. Nevertheless, the sculptor's lawyer viewed the statement as confirmation of his client's initial reaction after the accident – namely, the claim that other factors had contributed to the incident.
Last week, defence lawyers sharply criticised the amount and documentation of the damages claimed by the civil parties. On Monday, the family's lawyer submitted additional documents to the file, stressing that the claims were adequate. The defence lawyers, however, agreed that the documentation was insufficient to prove the requested damages. One defence lawyer stated that the claims were "perhaps justified, perhaps not," adding that the family's lawyer should have done her work properly. Another defence lawyer went so far as to request that the court correct a technical mistake made by the family's lawyer, to the benefit of the family.
The verdict in this case will be handed down on 2 July.
